The latest episode in the long-running struggle for control of the Constitution, and the political power that goes with it, is playing out in the federal courts in California. The contending philosophies are originalism, which holds that the Constitution should be read as it was originally understood by the framers and ratifiers, and the congeries of cultural and political theories proposed by academics and progressives, but not contemplated by the founders. It is difficult to say whether originalism or one of the alternatives is winning the debate. The answer to such questions is inevitably subjective, but it is clear that originalism has been gaining adherents and may be close to dominance in constitutional scholarship. However, the ultimate fate of originalism will depend upon the character of judges and professors. They have a constant temptation to yield to the allure of power to do good as they see the good rather than as the political branches to which people have entrusted the care of democracy see it.